Will Franken Get A Pass?
Senator Al Franken 
Minnesota is the latest to be accused of sexual misconduct. So, will democrats circle the wagons to protect this bucket of pond scum? Or, will they demand his resignation?
Senator Al Franken Minnesota is the latest to be accused of sexual misconduct. So, will democrats circle the wagons to protect this bucket of pond scum? Or, will they demand his resignation?
Stop your calls we, we have a winner.
http://www.amirite.com/816553-w...his-or-her-own
No, I do not think so. When I first read an article in The Atlantic the about the accusation this morning, I was more willing to not totally throw him under the bus. The alleged forcibly cramming his tongue in her mouth during the skit rehearsal....BAD, just not acceptable in any way.
The picture? Disrespectful and not at all funny, but "groping" seems a bit of an exaggeration. She had a flak vest on, and it appears that he's barely touching her.
After hearing her very credible interview about what happened on that USO trip, though, it sounds like Franken was vindictively harassing Tweeden because her rejection of him. Will he lose his position in the Senate over his "sexual misconduct" for this one instance 11 years ago, maybe.
You're right Piper, the photo is really flattering to the sleeping woman getting felt up.
The photo is extremely unflattering to Franken. I said no such thing, Budwick, and that was uncalled for.
Quoting Piper - "The picture? Disrespectful and not at all funny, but "groping" seems a bit of an exaggeration. She had a flak vest on, and it appears that he's barely touching her. "
THAT was uncalled for!
Yep, that's what I said. I sure as hell didn't say that I thought what he did was okay.
I read the story of the woman in the photo, and it sounds plausible to me. Then to hear he's been doing the same sort of thing as a Senator, that's really bad. Will he get a pass? In this climate, I doubt it. But I'd be surprised if that story gets the sort of attention Roy Moore has gotten from the "mainstream" press. It'll probably be a one and done reporting job, they won't keep harping on it and dragging it up as they would for someone on the right.
The Franken story is all over CNN today.
And he has to go in front of the ethics commitee.
Exactly. The conservatives would love to cry victim, when the whole subject has never been a partisan issue.
So, you condemn Franken's behavior? Should he resign or be dismissed? [It's been a long time.]
It's up to him, but I personally think he should resign.
Never.
I will oppose anyone who uses bad behavior as a weapon.
Had a look at cnn.com, and unlike the rest of the MSM, it is their headline story:
Franken agrees to investigation into himself
Senator says he will cooperate with ethics probe after revelation that he groped a woman in her sleep in 2006
It's a whitewash job, she said the image was humiliating and seemed like harassment... given the fact that he had groped her and forced his tongue into her mouth earlier in the USO tour, and then after being rebuffed, treated her like crap for the duration of the tour.
The story just broke so they can't not talk about it, but they spun it as best they could, and just watch, they'll quickly forget about it.
No, they didn't spin it. Blitzer, particularly, was hard on Franken. Bakari Sellers said he should resign.
I don't know what you were looking at.
...and now they've spun it into an attack on Trump, and managed to work Moore into it too.
Trump blasts Franken, but stays silent on Moore
Trump invites a new round of scrutiny over past sexual harassment accusations levied against him
No further mention of Franken on the front page of http://www.cnn.com/ except "Analysis: Why did Trump attack Franken? Simple."
And I see they're still banging on about Kushner, second headline on the site is, "Kushner got emails about WikiLeaks and Russia"...
Once again, if Trump hadn't opened his big mouth, or if he had just sat on his fat fingers, there would have been no story for them to discuss.
Trump is his own worst enemy.
I think you're deliberately missing the point. The fact is I called it 100%.
Today there are 5 Roy Moore stories on cnn.com, including the main headline. The fact that a new accuser has come out against Franken is mentioned only in a small sub-headline.
And I a saying, very slowly now, that Trump caused the story to shift, by going after Franken.
And by the way, Trump has some nerve to chastising someone else when it comes to inappropriate behavior towards women.
You want to equate Franken's behavior with one of a sex crazy pedophile?
CNN is globalist propaganda, not news. They aren't there to inform you, they're there to manipulate you. And you seem to eat it up, a typical low information voter parroting the mainstream narrative. Try forming an original thought for a change, it's a necessary facet of being a sentient being.
As is Fox. Which is why I don't rely on cable news. You should try the same.
I was going to make a post about it. But i will say it here.
Trump had no desire to drain any swamps. But....his admitted behavior and the abhorent behavior of others in positions of power, and the courage of these women to speak out, may very well have put a gaping hole in the swampy cement pond.
Trump didn't comment, because he can't.
I know...he is keeping a very low profile regarding these matters.
Shit, wrong again. Trump just keeps proving that there is no bottom.
At least some Democrats are already working on giving him a pass.
Of course.
If you are a progressive, you have a lot of redeeming merits, and your groping lapses can be forgiven.
If you are a conservative, however, then you are thoroughly evil, and have no redeeming merits whatsoever.
How to figure that one, stinkerbell? Clinton was impeached, so what did he get away with?
He got away with staying in office, of course.
The impeachment resolution narrowly passed in the House, 228–206, with every Democrat except 5 voting 'no'. But of course, there was no chance of conviction in the Senate, with every single Democrat circling the wagons and voting 'not guilty'.
Try again, dru.
That's because every Democrat knew there were far more pressing problems than the president having an extramarital affair with a consenting grown woman.
And it still taints his presidency.
Those weren't the impeachment charges, dru.
The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, which were perfectly true. But of course you and the rest of the Democrats tried to make it "all about sex".
Try again, dru.
No shit Sherlock, but on what issue did he "perjury" himself on.
It matters not. He lied under oath and tried to obstruct the investigation. It was the attempted cover-up that was the crime.
Try again, dru.
Not the fact that they couldn't nail him for any of the biggies like Whitewater, huh? Well I guess the cons had to settle for what they could get.
"It was the attempted cover-up that was the crime"?
Good, we will remind you of that one when Mueller is tearing a chunk off of Trump's fat ass. Not too cool when he fired Comey. Something about the "Russia thingy".
Re Whitewater: "Susan McDougal was granted a pardon by President Clinton before he left office."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...er_controversy
That was an obvious payoff for not squealing on the Clintons.
Try again, dru.
Thanks for the link, it came in handy.
"Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. "
You think otherwise?
Prove it!
Of course they weren't prosecuted. MacDougal took jail time rather than squeal on them.
"Susan McDougal served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to Whitewater."
And she was duly rewarded with a pardon by Bill for her silence.
Who says there's no honor among thieves?
Try again, dru.
Since she was an associate, did you ever think, ( I know it's hard) that she was covering her own ass?
As I have said, Starr had his 15 minutes and couldn't prove diddly.
There would be no contempt of court for covering her own ass, if that's all she was doing. Fifth Amendment, you know.
Try again, dru.
If she was refusing to comment because of her own involvement, then yes, she can invoke her 5th amendment right.
Trump's people are experts at it.
Then explain why there WAS a contempt conviction, and why Bill pardoned her, if you can.
Try again, dru.
OMG, contempt convictions can be ushered for a variety of reasons.
No, you keep trying, and just maybe something will stick.
Oh, really? And what was the reason in this case, if, as you tried to pretend above, she was only covering her own ass?
And why did Bill pardon her?
Try again, dru.
And if you read her reasons, she was afraid for herself, not Bill Clinton.
You're dodging, dru. WHAT was she afraid of?
try again
Why don't you try reading? She felt she was being framed by her two partners.
That's absurd on the face of it.
In her autobiography, McDougal claimed she refused to testify because Starr was trying to get her to lie about the Clintons. If that was true, all she had to do was testify in court that she knew nothing incriminating about the Clintons and there would have been no basis for a contempt conviction.
As it was, there was plenty of other stuff that she was found guilty of by a jury, for which she got a remarkably light 2-year sentence (out of a potential 17 years).
"She could have received as much as 17 years in prison and $1 million in fines, and the leniency of the sentence came as a surprise to some trial-watchers."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/...dougal.trials/
Give it another try, dru. You flopped yet again.
"In her autobiography, McDougal claimed she refused to testify because Starr was trying to get her to lie about the Clintons"
Good, you answered your own question.
So all she had to do was testify that she knew nothing incriminating about the Clintons, and there wouldn't have been any grounds for contempt of court.
She didn't explain why she didn't do that, and neither did you, dru.
Try again.
Yes, I did. You are just too damn slow to pick it up. I believe I said, she was trying to cover her own ass.
Yes, you said that, and it makes no more sense now that it did then.
If it was true that she knew nothing incriminating about the Clintons, then all she had to do was testify to that effect. If she had done that, there would have been no grounds for the 18-month contempt conviction for refusing to testify at all.
You blew it again, dru. Too much tryptophan?
Because like before, your mind isn't working on all cylinders.
Once again, she was not about to give them anything that would have incriminated her later. It didn't work, she paid the price, all of which still does not help your case.
Once again, what you say makes absolutely no sense. If she really knew nothing incriminating about the Clintons, she could have said so in court and then refused to answer any questions that would incriminate her under her 5th Amendment rights, as you already have admitted. Instead, she invited the contempt citation by not testifying at all. It could not possibly have turned out worse for her by testifying as I outlined here…
…UNLESS, of course, she DID know something incriminating about the Clintons, and was afraid she could be nailed for perjury if she testified that she didn’t. THAT makes a whole lot more sense than your mindlessly uncritical defense of Bill and Hill.
You botched it again, dru.
And once AGAIN, you are proving ignorant of human nature. ANYTHING she said could have been used against HER!
Most people, if not all, are not going to take a bullet for ANY president. And Trump is going to find that out, real soon.
Of COURSE she took a bullet for the Clintons by refusing to testify at all. That ASSURED a contempt citation.
And Bill rewarded her with a pardon on his last day in office.
You bungled it again, dru. You sure are a master bungler.
Have you even read anything about this topic or are you just following bias bloggers, as usual.
It is hilarious, watching a doctrinaire lib like you mindlessly accusing others of doing what you routinely do.
What do you want, stinker? You are sending out blogs, that any idiot can write, (probably you) and you expect people to fall for it.
That's the same untruth you told on the Depp thread.
http://www.amirite.com/816471-j...ey-get/2699238
You, on the other hand, have never backed ANYTHING you said on these threads with anything except lib party-line blather.
Who sent the link to the blogger, stinker, and then tried to pass it off as the actual article?
It wasn't me, stinker.
I didn't try to pass off anything; the link clearly says it's news analysis, called 'The Fix', which has been a daily feature of the Washington Post for 6 years.
YOU fried to discredit it as a blog on which "anybody" can post, when in fact the few regular contributors are WaPo reporters like Aaron Blake, who authored the piece in question.
Furthermore, a glance at the titles of the "blogs" would show that you would heartily approve of most of them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...=.9d0ddb48cbe1
It was only when one of them had the temerity to tell the obvious truth about what Brazile and Warren said about the Clintons that you started your mollywauling and dodging about the piece being "cherry-picked".
And I invited you to cherry pick facts that proved that what it said wasn't true. No answer, of course, because you have none.
Nor did you have any response to what Warren agreed was a primary process "rigged" in favor of Hillary.
Try again, Flopsy.
Nice spin.
YOU tried to pass if off as the actual article instead of the pick over mess that it was.
The "author" used cherry picked pieces, out of context, to feebly try to make a bias point.
Now keep on with that tap dancing and maybe no body will even notice.
There you go again, accusing others of what you have been doing from the beginning— dodging with your little tap dance and failing to prove anything you've said.
Try again, Flopsy.
Or at least keep the doors and windows locked.
Isn't that Frankenstein? Nice boobs, but the hands are hindering the view.
I certainly hope not!
So far is doesn't seem as if he will, but we'll see.
Franken has gotten passes for years by FEMALE enablers - calling it all part of his comedy/being funny. Remember both Joy Bayhar and Arianna Huffington have posed for pictures with him touching their breasts (and Huffington with his fingers 'tickling' her butt). Did they agree beforehand to these poses or did he just do it and they laughed it off? Makes not difference, he was given a 'pass' and therefore assumed it was okay for him to do it.